We carried out a review of the data available to us about Jenny's House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Jenny's House, you can give feedback on this service.
Jennys House provides accommodation and personal care for people who have a learning disability. Respite care is provided for people who have a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder. The periods of respite care may be for a few days or longer depending on the individual's needs. This is usually at weekends.
Jennys House is an adapted detached residential property which can accommodate up to eight people. The service is situated in a residential area of Clacton on Sea and is close to amenities and main bus routes. The premises are set out on three floors with each person using the service having their own individual bedroom each time they stay, and adequate communal facilities are available for people to make use of within the service. At the time of our inspection four people were using the service.
The service applied the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
At our last inspection of this service on 14 September 2018 the service was rated Requires Improvement. The areas of Effective, Responsive and Well Led were rated as requires improvement and we identified one breach of regulation in relation to governance. Systems for quality oversight were not fully established to show sustainability. We additionally made recommendations for the registered provider to address staff supervision, personalised care planning and training.
At this inspection, we found the evidence did not continue to support the rating of Requires Improvement and sufficient improvements had been made and the overall rating for the service had now improved to Good.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
The service was well managed and led internally by the registered manager, to help ensure person centred, safe and effective care. Staffing, risk management and medicines arrangements for people's care and related management checks, helped to ensure people's safety at the service. People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. The provider was a visible presence in the service and took action when things went wrong at the service and referred to relevant authorities involved with people's care when required to do so.
People's care, environment and related equipment needs were met. Staff supported people to maintain or improve their health and nutrition as agreed with them and any external health professionals involved in their care. People were supported to have maximum control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The provider's related policies and systems supported this practice.
Staff were effectively trained and supported to provide people's care. Relevant information sharing for people's care was standardised; to help ensure they received timely, consistent care as agreed with them, including when they needed to move between services.
People received care from kind, caring staff who ensured their dignity, equality and rights in their care. Staff knew people well; how to communicate with them and understood what was important to people. People were informed, involved as able, and supported to understand, agree and make ongoing decisions about their care.
People received timely, personalised care that was tailored to their individual needs and wishes. This was provided in a way which helped to optimise people's independence, inclusion and engagement in home life; with their friends and family and local community as they chose.
People and their relatives were informed and confident to make a complaint or raise any concerns about the service, if they needed to. People's views and feedback were regularly sought. Findings from complaints and feedback were used to help inform and ensure any service improvements needed.
Management and staff understood their role and responsibilities for people's care. There were effective arrangements for communication, record keeping and information handling at the service, along with relevant engagement and partnership working for people's care and safety.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 29 October 2018) and there was a breach of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations. The service is therefore rated good at this inspection.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Jenny’s House provides accommodation and personal care for people who have a learning disability. Respite care is provided for people who have a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder. The periods of respite care may be for a few days or longer depending on the individual's needs. Jenny’s House is an adapted detached residential property which can accommodate up to eight people. The service is situated in a residential area of Clacton on Sea and is close to amenities and main bus routes. The premises are set out on three floors with each person using the service having their own individual bedroom and adequate communal facilities are available for people to make use of within the service. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.' Registering the Right Support CQC policy.”
At our last inspection of this service on 08 December 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence did not continue to support the rating of good and that the overall rating for the service was now Requires Improvement. The areas of Effective, Responsive and Well Led were rated as requires improvement at this inspection. We identified one breach of regulation at this inspection. This was in relation to governance. Systems for quality oversight were not fully established to show sustainability. We additionally made recommendations for the registered provider to address staff supervision, personalised care planning and training.
A registered manager was in post however was not present at the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff did not always receive the support, supervision and guidance from the management team that they required The exploration of other formats of learning for staff other than on line training would enhance staff’s competence in their role. We have made a recommendation regarding this.
At the time of our inspection medicines were observed to be administered safely. Systems were in place for the ordering, obtaining and returning of people's medicines. Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines and their competency had been assessed by a member of the management team.
A variety of methods were used to ensure the care staff were kept up to date with people's needs.
People felt safe and were protected from the potential risk of harm and abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding people and followed the provider's policy and procedure. People's personal belongings were protected from the potential risk of theft.
Potential risks to people had been assessed and steps were taken to reduce any risks. The premises were well maintained and equipment had been regularly serviced to ensure it was in good working order.
There were enough staff deployed to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff were recruited safely following the provider's policy and procedures. Staff received training to meet people's needs including their specialist needs, however we have recommended that a formal staff rota be available and explore different formats of training delivery other than that of on line e learning.
.
People's safety in the event of an emergency had been assessed, with guidance to inform staff how to keep people safe. Accidents involving people were monitored with action taken to prevent the risk of reoccurrence.
People were protected from the risk of infection with cleaning schedules in place to promote the prevention and control of infection.
People's needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. People received a caring service which was responsive to their needs. Care plans could be better personalised as they were lacking some essential information and in the process of being updated. People were involved as they were able in the development and review of their care plan but this could be more prominent as some care plans we noted were not signed. Guidance was in place to inform staff of how to meet people's needs whilst encouraging and promoting their independence.
People were encouraged to make their own choices about their lives. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were kind and caring towards people. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. Staff knew people well and had knowledge about people's histories, likes and dislikes. People's equality, diversity and human rights were promoted and respected.
People were supported to take part in a range of activities to meet their needs and interests.
People were supported to express their views and were involved in the development of the service they received.
Complaints were investigated and responded to in line with the providers policy.
Quality audits and governance processes were not fully formalised and in place to enable continuous improvement in the quality of the service provided and to ensure that learning was shared.
It is a legal requirement that a provider's latest CQC inspection report rating is displayed at the service where a rating has been given. This is so that people, visitors and those seeking information about the service can be informed of our judgements. We found the provider had displayed their rating on a notice board in the entrance hall.
Further information is in the detailed findings below. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report
The inspection took place on 08 December 2015 and was announced. Jenny's House is a care home without nursing, providing accommodation for up to eight people who require personal care. Jenny's House provides respite care for people who have a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder. We announced this inspection to ensure people were at the service as the periods of respite care may be for a few days or longer depending on the individual's needs. At the time of our inspection there were two people staying at the service for a three day period.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were safe because staff understood their responsibilities in managing and mitigating risk and identifying potential abuse. People received safe care that met their assessed needs. There were enough staff who had been recruited safely and who had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support in ways that people preferred. The provider had systems in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely.
The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLS and associated Codes of Practice. The Act, Safeguards and Codes of Practice are in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there is a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals. No-one at the service was subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained and had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Staff had developed positive, respectful relationships with people and were kind and caring in their approach. People were given choices in their daily routines and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported and empowered to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives.
Staff knew people well and were trained, skilled and competent in meeting people’s needs. Staff were supported and supervised in their roles. People were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support.
People’s health needs were managed appropriately with input from relevant health care professionals when required. Staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink that met their individual needs. People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well.
People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family so that they were not socially isolated. There was an open culture and staff were supported to provide care that was centred on the individual.
The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service and take the views and concerns of people and their relatives into account to make improvements to the service.
We saw that staff sought people's agreement before providing any support and assistance. Care plans and risk assessments contained sufficient information for staff to be able to meet peoples assessed needs. One relative told us "The staff are very friendly and supportive to the people who go there".
We saw that staff had a good awareness of how to protect people who used the service from abuse. Information relating to what to do if you have any concerns regarding the abuse of vulnerable adults was displayed in the entrance hall.
We saw that there was a sufficient number and mix of senior and junior staff available throughout the day and night.
We saw that there was a complaint policy in place and that people also had access to an easy read version. These were displayed in the entrance hall. A relative we spoke with told us 'I have no complaints about the service; the manager always checks with me that things have been okay.'
We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by reviewing complaints and compliments records and surveys that were completed as part of the home's quality assurance process. We found that relatives were happy with the service. One person was complimentary about staff and said, 'They are good people and we trust them.' Another said their relative, 'Can't wait to go to Jenny's place.'
One person with whom we spoke was observed engaging with staff on an equal bass. The person looked very calm, relaxed and happy within their own environment.